See copyright notice at the bottom of this page.
List of All Posters
Bruce, Lee, and the Goose
December 19, 2002 - Scott
"The way you feel about Dwight Gooden, Fernando Valenzuela, and David Cone, will lead your decision as to whether Goose Gossage should go to the Hall Of Fame."
I disagree. Comps are useful, but only go so far. Goose's comps had substantially higher ERAs (and gave up more hits and HRs).
Goose had about a 10-year stretch there where his ERAs were unbelievably low -- under 2.00, I think. It's unfortunate he's being rolled together with Smith & Sutter. In a way, it's the opposite of what haqppened to Duke Snider: in a group of 3 (Mantle, Mays, Snider), two deserved it, and the third only marginally did, so the strong two carried the third in. Here, there are three relievers, one of whom deserves it (Goose), but the other two probably don't, and they're dragging him down into a pool of "three top relievers who don't deserve it."
Bruce, Lee, and the Goose
December 20, 2002 - Scott
Interesting point Walt and others have made about how there are fewer 2B, 3B, C, & CF in the HOF. I'll ignore 3B for a moment, but C, 2B, and CF are three of the more grueling positions, physically. We all know about C. Note how far more CFs than LFs and RFs end up having surprisingly injury-shortened careers (Murphy, Lynn, etc.). And 2B end up being slid into far more than any other position (because more grounders go to shortstops who throw to 2B) -- Gantner, Vina, etc. Tthat's one reason the Yanks are thinking of moving Soriano, and Baseball Prospectus hypothesized that this is why more top 2B prospects under-achieve.
The point is that while the best 1Bs can be expected to have a 15-20 year career, the best Cs can be expected to have a 10-15 year career (of good years, at least), and that's why Carter and Murray deserve similar praise for their career achievements. The same is true to a lesser degree about CF and 2B, but much less recognized -- so they get hosed.
The relief pitcher situation is different. There's no reason to think the position is more grueling and therefore that the fewer inninge (even the fewer "leverage-adjusted innings") reflect that they did their duty in a physically grueling position. To the contrary, Smoltz shows that relieving can be a lot less grueling (setting aside oddities like Dale "The Horse" Mohorcic").
The point here is that there is a very good rationale for a "position adjustment" for not only C, but also CF and 2B. That rationale is not present for RP.
Pyschological Impact of a Devastating Outcome (September 27, 2003)
Discussion ThreadPosted 3:46 p.m.,
September 29, 2003
(#2) -
Scott
I wonder how they perform when faced with the realization that if continue at their current pace they'll make the All-Star game - or hit an incentive in their contract or do so poorly that they'll be sent back down? Very hard to quantify I'm sure - but from experience I think this effect was real.